December 20, 2007

Sex (of a sort) in the news

From the Manawatu Standard:
"A student masturbated in changing rooms in Kmart because he was under exam stress, a Palmerston North court heard yesterday.
But a judge said he doubted this was the whole story because he had a report that suggested the 24-year-old was sexually aroused by trying on new trousers."
They're the wrong trousers, Your Honour! And they've gone wrong!
"However, Judge Gregory Ross in the end decided not to convict the masturbator, who admitted offensive behaviour in the store, and banned publication of his name. He ordered a $100 payment toward the cost of prosecution."
What, the store didn't get the dry cleaning bill refunded? But, on the other hand, you now know the true meaning of the term "shop-soiled".
"It happened in the middle of the day on December 5, Sergeant Chris Whitmore told the hushed court."
Yes, hush, citizens. Let's have this criminal judged by a jury of his peers.
"The student went into the changing rooms with two pairs of trousers, pulled down his own trousers, sat on the floor of one of the rooms, and began his venture into onanism."
Don't you just love the poetic expressiveness of English metaphors. Venture into Onanism, it almost sounds like an airline advertising tag or a would-be interesting episode of Songs of Praise.
"But there was a metre gap between door and floor and two people saw what he was doing. The police were called and the man confessed, Mr Whitmore said. Defence lawyer Steve De Vorms said stress before his client's final exams was the most likely explanation for what he did, which came "completely out of the blue".
But Judge Ross then said there was a suggestion in a report he had that it might also have come about through the defendant trying on new trousers.
"This was a private act in a public place." he said."
I have heard that guys trying on their new leather pants get an involuntary sexual reaction, nothing abnormal about that, really. Who hasn't felt the thrill of a new pair of stretch jeans on one's thighs?
The witnesses should have been cross-examined better: like, which hand was he using? His full fist or just a few fingers? Was his underwear down too? How far down were the new trousers? Was he able to reach the destination during his venture into onanism? Did he use his old trousers to wipe off the evidence? The court would have been even more hushed when hearing that sort of forensic details essential to be able to mete out proper justice.
"Mr De Vorms said the masturbation was an aberration, something his client wasn't proud of."
The judge should have pulled up the defence lawyer for telling lies: masturbation isn't an aberration, it's the most widely and universally practiced sexual variant in the world, ever. And it's nothing to be ashamed of. Pride has nothing to do with it.
"Judge Ross said the defendant's offending was at the lower end of the scale. People could see him, but he couldn't see them."
The hallmark of a true, professional showman, it seems, oblivious to his audience appreciation, and instead totally immersed in his art and entertainment.

No comments: